You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@decus.org> on 1997/07/07 18:44:24 UTC
ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
I think the ABOUT_APACHE file should be accessible from
WWW.Apache.Org. Unfortunately, that makes things a bit dicey, since
it lives under the apache module, not apache-site.
So.. should it remain unavailable as it is now? Should it be copied
into apache-site (with the potential sync headaches that would
entail)? Or is there some weird unknown-to-me CVS incantation that
can maintain a single file in another module's directory?
#ken :-)}
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>.
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I think the ABOUT_APACHE file should be accessible from
> WWW.Apache.Org. Unfortunately, that makes things a bit dicey, since
> it lives under the apache module, not apache-site.
>
> So.. should it remain unavailable as it is now? Should it be copied
> into apache-site (with the potential sync headaches that would
> entail)? Or is there some weird unknown-to-me CVS incantation that
> can maintain a single file in another module's directory?
I'm not sure ABOUT_APACHE should go onto the site exactly as-is, but I see
no problem with having two different copies of the same file (probably one
in HTML and one in text) - the root-level CHANGES file in the Apache
distribution are the same as the /docs/whats_new* files, for example.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
At 06:45 PM 7/10/97 +1100, you wrote:
>Is there a reason why new-httpd is a mailing list instead of a quasi-private
>news server?
>From a server perspective: for a world-wide distributed high-volume
high-signal-to-noise low-user-number mailing list, it's much more scalable
to support mail delivery than news server access. At least until "nnrpd"
is multithreaded. :) (which Netscape may have done for their server, I
dunno, nor do I care..)
>I am new here, and have lots of expertise and time to
>contribute.
And such is the lifeblood of the project!
>But, the mailing list is so (wonderfully) active, that finding the
>right "thread" where my time would be most well spent and useful is
>quite difficult. In fact, I try to keep a low-profile rather than clutter
>the mailing list with "newbie" junk.
I'd be happy to (and do) answer questions off-list if you'd like...
>It appears that there is a relatively stable core group that's been around
>for a while, and that in the presence of a larger group of contributors, a
>single list may become somewhat overwhelming to newcomers and
>old time residents as well.
True, and much of what we do here may seem noisy, but the pace of
development is extremely fast, and it has seemed to work; though admittedly
it's not for everyone. It's just a different way of doing things.
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
"Why not?" - TL brian@organic.com - hyperreal.org - apache.org
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>.
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Gary Wisniewski wrote:
> Is there a reason why new-httpd is a mailing list instead of a quasi-private
> news server? I am new here, and have lots of expertise and time to
> contribute. But, the mailing list is so (wonderfully) active, that
> finding the
> right "thread" where my time would be most well spent and useful is
> quite difficult. In fact, I try to keep a low-profile rather than clutter
> the mailing list with
> "newbie" junk.
>
> It appears that there is a relatively stable core group that's been around
> for a while, and that in the presence of a larger group of contributors, a
> single list may become somewhat overwhelming to newcomers and
> old time residents as well.
If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the oven :) I, for one, as an
active developer, like having all the mail come right to my mailbox. News
is a pain for this sort of thing.
Get a threaded mail agent that supports some sort of filtering, and you
shouldn't have much of a problem.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@organic.com>
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Gary Wisniewski <ga...@spidereye.com.au>.
>Caution, in absence of another Apache mailing list, publishing info about
>new-httpd too widely could be a mistake. I welcome new developers, but
>remain wary of new-httpd turning silly. There is already enough...
Is there a reason why new-httpd is a mailing list instead of a quasi-private
news server? I am new here, and have lots of expertise and time to
contribute. But, the mailing list is so (wonderfully) active, that
finding the
right "thread" where my time would be most well spent and useful is
quite difficult. In fact, I try to keep a low-profile rather than clutter
the mailing list with
"newbie" junk.
It appears that there is a relatively stable core group that's been around
for a while, and that in the presence of a larger group of contributors, a
single list may become somewhat overwhelming to newcomers and
old time residents as well.
Just an observation.
Gary
------------------------------
Gary Wisniewski
Spider Eye Studios Pty. Ltd., Australia, +61 3 9415 6700
[Formerly GUI Online Productions]
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> You could convert it to html, stick it wherever you like, and then as part
> of the release building we could lynx -dump it.
Caution, in absence of another Apache mailing list, publishing info about
new-httpd too widely could be a mistake. I welcome new developers, but
remain wary of new-httpd turning silly. There is already enough...
erm... "legit" traffic.
Re: ABOUT_APACHE on WWW.Apache.Org
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
You could convert it to html, stick it wherever you like, and then as part
of the release building we could lynx -dump it.
Dean
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I think the ABOUT_APACHE file should be accessible from
> WWW.Apache.Org. Unfortunately, that makes things a bit dicey, since
> it lives under the apache module, not apache-site.
>
> So.. should it remain unavailable as it is now? Should it be copied
> into apache-site (with the potential sync headaches that would
> entail)? Or is there some weird unknown-to-me CVS incantation that
> can maintain a single file in another module's directory?
>
> #ken :-)}
>